Hello, welcome to Boardseeker Windsurfing Magazine please use the links below to jump to a specific section.

Navigation Search Content Other Mpora Sites

Test of Starboard Quad

Posted by Dangerous Dave 
Dangerous Dave
Test of Starboard Quad
25 March '10 | 1:56pm
Put this on the starboard forum so i thought you guys should see it too - this is actually me after taking a day or so to calm down after reading the test.
Good thing none of the boardseeker people were at my beach on monday........

Ok guys - Boardseeker mag seem to be trying to set themselves up as a new pan european testing authority on windsurfing gear - and so far seem to have been pretty balanced about it.

But what a weird test for the Q-76 the french, germans and even the printed UK magazines loved it .I heard that one of the UK magazine testers bought a Q-76 for himself after doing the test.

I'm wondering whether they have been "bought" by Quatro - all they seem to do is bang on about the Quatro twins and quads and at the first opportunity they had to really have a go at SB they fully piled in there.

The UK distributor puts lots of advertising the way of boardseeker and their boss even had a quatro shaped for him a few years back.

Kinda makes you think they are not at all impartial.

As a UK customer who has bought (and loves) the Q76 convertible i'm really upset and angry about this as it'll no doubt impact severley on my boards resale value- plus all the "trendy" kids will think i'm a muppet.

Glad to get that off my chest.
Huggy Bear
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
25 March '10 | 2:03pm
it is what it is! Looks like it performed fantastically as a single fin, so nothing wrong with the Hull shape. Just when you put the quads in - sounds like suspect angles - Quality control perhaps..

Im guessing those who buy quads must have a lot of proper waves, in lighter winds?
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
25 March '10 | 3:25pm
read their test of the Starboard Kode 86. they loved it and rated it over the quatro. the test clearly boosted its price on the 2nd hand market if you can find one.
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
25 March '10 | 3:57pm
Hi Dave, I'm not exactly sure what response you want me to make here....

We have absolutely no desire to give Starboard a bad review - why would we? As you point out, they advertise fairly well....

However when it comes to testing, you either test fairly or you don't in my opinion. We have done everything we can to get the best from that board. We found many positive attributes (as outlined in the test) but also had problems with it.

I can't comment on other mags and how their tests compare with ours. All I can say is that we put lots of time into our testing, with different riders of different weights and I am very confident in our findings. If it turns out there is a fault with the board then that isn't really our fault.

With regard to Quatro - I think that is a low blow. If you try the Quatro's and find they perform different to how we describe, then I would certainly be interested to hear your views. If it's just speculation that the boards aren't as good as we say, then please go and try them before you start accusing us of manipulating test results in their favour.

As for me getting a Custom off them 3 years ago - yes I did. And so incidentally did most of the top pro riders in the World.... for good reason. I also paid for it!

Coming back to Starboard, we very much like the brand and recognize the effort they put into the windsurfing industry both internationally and within the UK. We have no desire to give them bad reviews and the last test we did on the Fantastic Kode 86 should confirm this.

Anyway, it sounds to me like you are really enjoying your Quad, which is great. I hope you continue to enjoy many happy hours on it.

All the best,

all the trendy kids thinkin your a muppet!
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
25 March '10 | 8:47pm
The dangerous dude, needs to go sit under a tree for a while, theres allsorts of boards for allsorts of muppets, (sorry people), if you like it thats fine, if a load of testers think its a turkey, it probably was.
couldve been worse couldve had bought a whitchcraft, oh!.
Loved that muppet line well done!, still laughing.
Molly D
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
26 March '10 | 1:03pm
Please find google translated FULL testtext from French Wind magazine

Tester's Top Choice
Quad 76 WoodCarbon
Wind Magazine March 2010
Extremely versatile and super efficient

Part of the new trend, this Starboard is fitted with four fins on the bottom, with the larger ones in front. The shape isn't extreme since the width is comfortably wide at the max point and in the tail. It is a bit heavy for its construction category, probably because of the number of fin boxes.

On the water
Contrary to what one would think, the Starboard Quad is far from being a board that is exclusive for the best, a board that is reserved to the elite riding in perfect conditions. We're actually not far from the complete opposite. Very competitive in the early planing race, it is one of the wave boards on the market that goes upwind the best (speed and angle). Pretty fast in a straight line, it is a pure bomb in onshore conditions and it also offers a lot of control in highwinds. Its outline gives a lot of tolerance when surfing and you can easily create a lot of speed in soft waves. You can turn nicely at lower speeds, with more possibility to turn in a pivot than the 81 that we tested in October. When you need to go wider at full speed, the Quad responds and with rails that penetrate well in the water and give lots of control.

If the waves are hyper powerful and fast, it can feel a bit big - but this is rare. Its biggest strength is the grip on the cut backs. You can really push as hard as you like and can make the rails scream without any fear of sliding. Our only negative point is that it may not be as reactive in the rail to rail transition as a twin fin.

Super versatile, the Starboard Quad is a board that allows you to make the most of many wave conditions, especially in France, with sails from 3.7 to 5.0m, and this for the majority of wave sailors. Our Tester's Top Choice

+ Versatility, user range, wind range, upwind performance, surfing speed, carving grip, early planing
- Sometimes less reactive in the rail to rail
another trendy kid thinking your a muppet
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
26 March '10 | 2:48pm
I'm wondering whether they have been "bought" by Starboard

Re: Test of Starboard Quad
26 March '10 | 3:01pm
so funny!!!

adrian explained pre all this that starboard have had the board back as they think it might be a bad one
in the write up too

keep going guys, great laugh
Amused bystander
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
26 March '10 | 4:59pm
Let's play a game:

Rank the following in order of integrity:

(a) Magazine Editor who decides to publish an unpopular finding, knowing that doing so will cause him grief and may cost him money.
(b) Brand which seeks to influence magazines by placing / withdrawing advertising on the strength of what's written about their products (and to be fair, I have no idea if this is in point here)
(c) Board owner / fanboy who, on reading something he'd rather not, seeks to impugn the character of the author
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
26 March '10 | 6:15pm
What I find really funny is that when a testing team says "all boards are good", people are like "yeah, that's a BS test, they don't want to take risk and really say what they think" etc...when the testers say "this board sucks", then they are accused to be bought by other brands...

And then you have the people who will tell you it's all BS because they have looked at the board specs, at a couple of pictures, and will tell you all about the behavior of the board on the water..without ever trying it...when twin fins came out, a huge number of people were screaming "that's marketing, that's a shame, it does not work"....of course, now, they all have twins...now quads are out ? and we hear again "it's marketing"...always by people who never tried the boards...and I bet next year they will all have quads.

This test take a while to come but I respect that they call a dog a dog...

And by the way, Mister Dangerous, everybody his own choice, and his own style...but I personally have now sailed both Quatro and Starboard quads and twins...and my vote goes hands down to Quatro, without thinking for more than 1/2 a second...and I have no problem whatsoever switching brands when one produces things that are better than another...it will change over time...maybe in a few years, Quatro will not be at the top anymore...that's life. But at the moment, at least to me, they are producing the best sticks I have ever sailed. Period. If someone does better, I am happy change.

So for some reason I am not that surprised that boardseeker comes up with similar conclusions on Quatro boards...
Amused Bystander
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
27 March '10 | 11:25am

French Wind Mag (courtesy of Molly D) Wrote:
> You can turn nicely at lower
> speeds, with more possibility to turn in a pivot
> than the 81 that we tested in October. When you
> need to go wider at full speed . . . . . . . ,

Boardeeker Wrote:
> we have concluded that on the wave, when going front side,
> the board is actually pretty good if you do a slower, wider
> bottom turn and aren't too powered up. Its when you try and
> snap it tight or are carrying a lot of power in the sail that the
> problems occur. Less experienced riders may find this ok,
> but advanced riders will have to adapt their technique to mix
> a slower, wider bottom turn with a more aggressive, tight top turn.

Is Wind Mag delicately referring to the same issue here, but just not being as direct as Boardseeker? Both seem to be saying wide, un-snappy bottom turns are what it's good at, it's just Adrian has explicitly added that it isn't good at snappy, powered up bottom turns. Wind doesn't actually say that, but you might read it by implication.

Now I have never sailed a quad and I wouldn't know a snappy bottom turn even if it turned and snapped my bottom, so that's unlikely to be an issue for me. It might back up the Boardseeker finding that for top-level sailors (the Clones), whose sailing style involves snappy, aggressive bottom turns, the quad may fail to deliver. Whereas, for the likes of me, the board might actually be a good choice, or at least would be if I was less of a lard-arse.
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
27 March '10 | 2:58pm
Well...concerning the tests from theh French mags, Wind and Planchemag...I have read them for years and years...and then stopped because I got tired to always read the same stuff...never a very honest comment...basically never ever say "OK, that board sucks"...
For example the Boardseeker tests do state "this is the best board of the group" or 'this is the best wave board we have ever ridden". French mags will never ever make such a direct statement (politics, politics)...so they are never reallyinformative...
Re: Test of Starboard Quad
27 March '10 | 7:24pm
I was unwittingly coerced into "helping" with the test for a (very long) day and spent quite a lot of it on the the starboard.I've been sailing for 15 years+ and was local to a very good riding beach for 5 years,however-I'm far from being pro level and I had'nt sailed for about 9 months.At first I was absolutely LOVING the quad,to the point of wanting one then and there.Slightly underpowered and not being super aggressive (still finding my feet a bit) it held speed through the bottom turn brilliantly and I was getting 3 or 4 turns and nice snaps off the top with ease.However as the wind filled in to full power and I started to gain confidence and push harder to turn more aggresively the board would occasionally trip as if it was spinning out or stalling on one of the fins.If I backed off a little and turnred off the back foot all was fine.
I don't have ANYTHING to gain from this its just my honest opinion of the the board I sailed that day.
I think if anything it shows Adrians impatiality and dedication to honest testing (not shared by many mags regardless of the sport-have you read an mtb magazine!!!!)

Your Email:


  • Valid attachments: gif, jpg, jpeg, png
  • No file can be larger than 400 KB
  • 5 more file(s) can be attached to this message